A Universal Bleeding Risk Score in Native and Allograft Kidney Biopsies: A French Nationwide Cohort Study.
biopsy
bleeding
epidemiology
kidney graft
native kidney
score
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 May 2023
17 May 2023
Historique:
received:
24
03
2023
revised:
24
04
2023
accepted:
28
04
2023
medline:
27
5
2023
pubmed:
27
5
2023
entrez:
27
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The risk of bleeding after percutaneous biopsy in kidney transplant recipients is usually low but may vary. A pre-procedure bleeding risk score in this population is lacking. We assessed the major bleeding rate (transfusion, angiographic intervention, nephrectomy, hemorrhage/hematoma) at 8 days in 28,034 kidney transplant recipients with a kidney biopsy during the 2010-2019 period in France and compared them to 55,026 patients with a native kidney biopsy as controls. The rate of major bleeding was low (angiographic intervention: 0.2%, hemorrhage/hematoma: 0.4%, nephrectomy: 0.02%, blood transfusion: 4.0%). A new bleeding risk score was developed (anemia = 1, female gender = 1, heart failure = 1, acute kidney failure = 2 points). The rate of bleeding varied: 1.6%, 2.9%, 3.7%, 6.0%, 8.0%, and 9.2% for scores 0 to 5, respectively, in kidney transplant recipients. The ROC AUC was 0.649 (0.634-0.664) in kidney transplant recipients and 0.755 (0.746-0.763) in patients who had a native kidney biopsy (rate of bleeding: from 1.2% for score = 0 to 19.2% for score = 5). The risk of major bleeding is low in most patients but indeed variable. A new universal risk score can be helpful to guide the decision concerning kidney biopsy and the choice of inpatient vs. outpatient procedure both in native and allograft kidney recipients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The risk of bleeding after percutaneous biopsy in kidney transplant recipients is usually low but may vary. A pre-procedure bleeding risk score in this population is lacking.
METHODS
METHODS
We assessed the major bleeding rate (transfusion, angiographic intervention, nephrectomy, hemorrhage/hematoma) at 8 days in 28,034 kidney transplant recipients with a kidney biopsy during the 2010-2019 period in France and compared them to 55,026 patients with a native kidney biopsy as controls.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The rate of major bleeding was low (angiographic intervention: 0.2%, hemorrhage/hematoma: 0.4%, nephrectomy: 0.02%, blood transfusion: 4.0%). A new bleeding risk score was developed (anemia = 1, female gender = 1, heart failure = 1, acute kidney failure = 2 points). The rate of bleeding varied: 1.6%, 2.9%, 3.7%, 6.0%, 8.0%, and 9.2% for scores 0 to 5, respectively, in kidney transplant recipients. The ROC AUC was 0.649 (0.634-0.664) in kidney transplant recipients and 0.755 (0.746-0.763) in patients who had a native kidney biopsy (rate of bleeding: from 1.2% for score = 0 to 19.2% for score = 5).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The risk of major bleeding is low in most patients but indeed variable. A new universal risk score can be helpful to guide the decision concerning kidney biopsy and the choice of inpatient vs. outpatient procedure both in native and allograft kidney recipients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37240634
pii: jcm12103527
doi: 10.3390/jcm12103527
pmc: PMC10219527
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2020 Nov 6;15(11):1587-1594
pubmed: 33060158
Transplantation. 2004 May 15;77(9):1475-6
pubmed: 15167615
Kidney Int Rep. 2019 Jul 23;4(10):1435-1445
pubmed: 31701053
Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2021 Nov 1;30(6):555-558
pubmed: 34412087
Nefrologia. 2014;34(1):115-9
pubmed: 24463868
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993 Feb;160(2):325-6
pubmed: 8424343
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012 Oct;7(10):1591-7
pubmed: 22837269
Am J Transplant. 2016 Apr;16(4):1298-305
pubmed: 26601796
Br J Urol. 1994 Jan;73(1):13-5
pubmed: 8298893
Am J Kidney Dis. 1998 Sep;32(3):426-31
pubmed: 9740159
Acta Radiol. 1997 May;38(3):431-6
pubmed: 9191436
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021 Feb;216(2):428-435
pubmed: 33325737
Am J Kidney Dis. 2012 Jul;60(1):62-73
pubmed: 22537423
Clin Kidney J. 2018 Oct;11(5):616-622
pubmed: 30289130
Transpl Int. 2016 Feb;29(2):165-6
pubmed: 26563539
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011 Jul;6(7):1774-80
pubmed: 21734093
Eur Radiol. 2003 Mar;13(3):527-30
pubmed: 12594555
Transpl Int. 2021 Jan;34(1):185-193
pubmed: 33152140
Nephron. 2020;144(1):14-20
pubmed: 31578024
Am J Transplant. 2013 May;13(5):1367-8
pubmed: 23621165
Transpl Int. 2016 Feb;29(2):167-72
pubmed: 26284692
Kidney Int Rep. 2021 Jul 17;6(10):2594-2603
pubmed: 34622099
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Nov;79:22-28
pubmed: 27181564
Transplantation. 2003 Sep 27;76(6):969-73
pubmed: 14508363
Kidney Int. 2000 Jul;58(1):390-5
pubmed: 10886586
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Jul;205(1):190-5
pubmed: 26102398
Am J Transplant. 2016 Sep;16(9):2661-9
pubmed: 26998676
Med Care. 2017 Jul;55(7):716-722
pubmed: 28437320
Nephron. 2018;138(4):275-279
pubmed: 29301131
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012 Jun;23(6):727-36
pubmed: 22513394
Am J Transplant. 2020 Sep;20(9):2318-2331
pubmed: 32463180
Circulation. 2004 Aug 31;110(9):1042-6
pubmed: 15313941
Am J Transplant. 2005 Aug;5(8):1992-6
pubmed: 15996250
J Clin Epidemiol. 1994 Nov;47(11):1245-51
pubmed: 7722560
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1994;9(11):1568-74
pubmed: 7870344